Bilateralism
Bilateralism
Bilateralism concerns relations or policies of joint action between two parties. It can be contrasted with unilateralism (where one party acts on its own) and multilateralism (where three or more parties are involved). Typically, the term has applications concerning political, economic, and security matters between two states. Bilateralism has both costs and benefits, and there is a debate on its merits relative to unilateral or multilateral approaches.
States have traditionally related to each other on a bilateral basis. They recognize each other as states and agree to send ambassadors to each other’s capital. Diplomatic relations can be unilateral, of course, but unless relations are bilateral, some tensions are likely. China and the United States concluded a Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, and formally established embassies in Beijing and Washington, DC, on March 1, 1979. The result was a normalization of relations, which had often been turbulent between 1949 and 1972.
Economic bilateralism is common. In trade, for example, countries have struck bilateral agreements in which they mutually agree to lower their tariffs. The effect is to encourage trade between the two sides to their mutual benefit. Such arrangements can also lead, however, to conflict with third parties excluded from such benefits. Bilateral agreements tend to be more common during or just after periods when economic nationalism (unilateralism) dominates or when multilateral options are stalled.
In security affairs, bilateralism is also found in agreements between states to come to each other’s defense if attacked or threatened by a third party. Otto von Bismarck negotiated such a treaty with the Austrian Habsburg Empire in 1879. That treaty also antagonized Russia and helped fuel insecurities that gave rise to World War I. During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union concluded a number of agreements to mutually limit nuclear weapons, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
Bilateralism has advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the alternatives. With respect to unilateralism, it offers less freedom of action. Yet it also offers the ability to realize mutual gains that may be available only from acting jointly, for example, greater economic activity from freer trade, reduced armament burdens from agreed limitations, and greater security from cooperation against external threats.
With respect to multilateralism the calculus reverses itself. Bilateralism affords greater freedom and efficiency of action because fewer actors are involved. The League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, have often been criticized for ineffectiveness because too many parties are involved.
Yet bilateralism is too costly and is insufficient to deal with some world problems. For example, the multilateral World Trade Organization is a much easier way to organize free trade than to have every country negotiate bilateral free-trade agreements with each other. And bilateral agreements would be unwieldy and not comprehensive enough for a systemic problem like global warming. The efficacy of bilateralism depends on the issue and the situation.
SEE ALSO International Relations
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caporaso, James A. 1992. International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations. International Organization 46 (3): 599–632.
Hardin, Garret. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.
Krugman, Paul. 1991. Is Bilateralism Bad? In International Trade and Trade Policy, ed. Elhanan Helpman and Assaf Razin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jeffrey W. Legro